Is God actually like the Zeus-like man depicted in Michelangelo's 16th Century painting, or like the Divinity as considered by the great rationalist thinkers of the 17th Century and the Enlightenment thinkers of the 18th Century, such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson?

There has been much debate about that ever since, to the point that today humanity is deeply divided over it. And it is no wonder that there are raging conflicts about the name and nature of God, about “God’s will,” about religion and religious prophecies, and about whether God even exists or not.

It’s no wonder because most people do not really understand the real nature of God, or the true purpose of religion.

That is especially true of those on the extreme opposite sides of the conflict and argument, because on one side are misguided Theocrats who want to rule and control society “in the name of God,” and on the other side are misguided Atheists who understandably react against religious bigotry and theocratic imposition but go so far as to try to "prove" God doesn't even exist.

However, even most of those who are more moderate or in the middle, who are either religious or "spiritual but not religious" do not realize what God really is. And that's no wonder either.

Throughout history people have been trying to describe God, but at best all they've been able to do is provide concepts of God, because God is, after all, eternal, infinite and omnipresent, and God is impossible to fathom or understand, let alone describe.

Perhaps the best we can do is say that God is the Great Spirit-Parent, the Divine Light-Energy-Sources of our existence, the Supreme Universal Cosmic Consciousness, the Essence of all life and form, and the primordial vibration or "Word" the was in the beginning and is made flesh in all of us.

That is perhaps a more accurate concept of God that may end the conflicts and divisions, because what is needed is a rational, reasonable analysis distinguishing between competing concepts of God and religion, and the real nature of God.

(The preceding is a quote of the Introduction to an article titled What Is the True Nature of God?, by The All Faiths Initiative For Peace, Freedom and Justice.)

Guy Dwyer Wrote: Is God actually like the Zeus-like man depicted in Michelangelo's 16th Century painting, or like the Divinity as considered by the great rationalist thinkers of the 17th Century and the Enlightenment thinkers of the 18th Century, such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson?

There has been much debate about that ever since, to the point that today humanity is deeply divided over it. And it is no wonder that there are raging conflicts about the name and nature of God, about “God’s will,” about religion and religious prophecies, and about whether God even exists or not.

It’s no wonder because most people do not really understand the real nature of God, or the true purpose of religion.

That is especially true of those on the extreme opposite sides of the conflict and argument, because on one side are misguided Theocrats who want to rule and control society “in the name of God,” and on the other side are misguided Atheists who understandably react against religious bigotry and theocratic imposition but go so far as to try to "prove" God doesn't even exist.

However, even most of those who are more moderate or in the middle, who are either religious or "spiritual but not religious" do not realize what God really is. And that's no wonder either.

Throughout history people have been trying to describe God, but at best all they've been able to do is provide concepts of God, because God is, after all, eternal, infinite and omnipresent, and God is impossible to fathom or understand, let alone describe.

Perhaps the best we can do is say that God is the Great Spirit-Parent, the Divine Light-Energy-Sources of our existence, the Supreme Universal Cosmic Consciousness, the Essence of all life and form, and the primordial vibration or "Word" the was in the beginning and is made flesh in all of us.

That is perhaps a more accurate concept of God that may end the conflicts and divisions, because what is needed is a rational, reasonable analysis distinguishing between competing concepts of God and religion, and the real nature of God.

(The preceding is a quote of the Introduction to an article titled What Is the True Nature of God?, by The All Faiths Initiative For Peace, Freedom and Justice.)

Guy, as I told you many times, "god's", devils, angels etc. are inventions of "people"; sorry to disappoint you whatever is up there no one knows; it could be not at all what people make of it. Also I'm convinced that whatever created the universe has no interest in "small bacteria" called people; certainly it does not look or think as people either. So people have to come of their high horses and stop the arrogance of thinking they know it all.

So there is your answer: HUMANS ABSOLUTELY DO NOT KNOW WHATEVER IS UP THERE!!

The nature of God is absolute zero. Neither is attainable. God takes the blame for every savage thing man has on his mind, because, it's Gods will. The savage is merely acting on behalf of God (fiction) to carry out heinous acts.

Even today's missionaries. They go down to the jungle, bring water, medicine, better huts...and then the catch (Here's this book I brought with me) You see, there's always a catch. Nothing is done out of true charity.... Gather up the peasants and we want to introduce to our lord and savior. You know, the guy that brought all these necessities.

I can't think of any other group that would do this to people that are in the very worst position imaginable. Dope dealers and pastors push poison. To offer salvation (the heroin) to people who really need it and then claim "Here's the only to get it".....SAD

Many open-minded scientists realize, as the scientific genius Albert Einstein said: "Religion without science is blind, and science without religion is lame."

Einstein also said: "All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling Man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom."

Even though Einstein was not a religious man, he was quite right in that observation. He also observed that "even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other" there are "strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies" as each aspires for truth that furthers Man’s understanding of his world.

Einstein further said: “Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvelous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavor to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature."

He said human beings can feel "the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves in nature ... and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole."

He said: "A human being is a part of a whole, called by us 'universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself as something separated from the rest... [but that is] a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness."

Interestingly, he said: "A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms--it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude."

Even more telling: "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

Further: "Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent, in fact, I am religious."

Educated people who gain true wisdom always arrive at similar conclusions, whether they consider themselves divinely inspired or not. And that is because the realization of the divine reality or the witnessing of the Divine Light within does not necessarily come in the context of religion. It is above and beyond that.

However, it should be noted that Einstein did not believe in a personal god, or in God as a person, or in a “Superman” God. He said: "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists." (Spinoza was one of the initiators of “The Enlightenment” period mentioned earlier.)

In fact, Einstein stated: "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves." He said: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one." And: "I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

Einstein was right about not believing in God as a person or personal god, because that's not what God is, as has been discussed. However, Einstein, like all men, was fallible. He had the right idea about a lot of things, but he was not correct about everything, especially about the soul. He ridiculed the idea that there is a human spirit-soul that will exist after the mortal body dies, calling such belief the height of egotism. But the great eternal "I am that I am" is infinitely greater than the human ego's sense of "I am but won't be when I'm dead." That, in fact, is the height of egotism.

What we are, in essence, is eternal. What "you" are at the highest level of your consciousness will still exist when your body passes away. Our consciousness and what we really are is not dependent upon his body, or this world. It will continue to exist. It is one with that which was, is, and always will be.

Science has yet to put its finger on it, but we're getting closer and closer. For example, the discovery of the Higgs Boson "God Particle" is promising because the latest theory is that it's an invisible particle without which humans and all the other combined sets of atoms in the Universe would not exist.

One day it will be common knowledge that science and true religion are compatible.

Guy Dwyer Wrote: Is God actually like the Zeus-like man depicted in Michelangelo's 16th Century painting, or like the Divinity as considered by the great rationalist thinkers of the 17th Century and the Enlightenment thinkers of the 18th Century, such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson?

There has been much debate about that ever since, to the point that today humanity is deeply divided over it. And it is no wonder that there are raging conflicts about the name and nature of God, about “God’s will,” about religion and religious prophecies, and about whether God even exists or not.

It’s no wonder because most people do not really understand the real nature of God, or the true purpose of religion.

That is especially true of those on the extreme opposite sides of the conflict and argument, because on one side are misguided Theocrats who want to rule and control society “in the name of God,” and on the other side are misguided Atheists who understandably react against religious bigotry and theocratic imposition but go so far as to try to "prove" God doesn't even exist.

However, even most of those who are more moderate or in the middle, who are either religious or "spiritual but not religious" do not realize what God really is. And that's no wonder either.

Throughout history people have been trying to describe God, but at best all they've been able to do is provide concepts of God, because God is, after all, eternal, infinite and omnipresent, and God is impossible to fathom or understand, let alone describe.

Perhaps the best we can do is say that God is the Great Spirit-Parent, the Divine Light-Energy-Sources of our existence, the Supreme Universal Cosmic Consciousness, the Essence of all life and form, and the primordial vibration or "Word" the was in the beginning and is made flesh in all of us.

That is perhaps a more accurate concept of God that may end the conflicts and divisions, because what is needed is a rational, reasonable analysis distinguishing between competing concepts of God and religion, and the real nature of God.

(The preceding is a quote of the Introduction to an article titled What Is the True Nature of God?, by The All Faiths Initiative For Peace, Freedom and Justice.)

Guy, as I told you many times, "god's", devils, angels etc. are inventions of "people"; sorry to disappoint you whatever is up there no one knows; it could be not at all what people make of it. Also I'm convinced that whatever created the universe has no interest in "small bacteria" called people; certainly it does not look or think as people either. So people have to come of their high horses and stop the arrogance of thinking they know it all.

Have you been watching COSMOS on sunday nights??? maybe some of these know it all zealots should watch

So there is your answer: HUMANS ABSOLUTELY DO NOT KNOW WHATEVER IS UP THERE!!

"Throughout history people have been trying to describe God, but at best all they've been able to do is provide concepts of God, because God is, after all, eternal, infinite and omnipresent, and God is impossible to fathom or understand, let alone describe."

So of course humans don't know what God is.

That is why the articles continues with this:

"Perhaps the best we can do is say that God is the Great Spirit-Parent, the Divine Light-Energy-Sources of our existence, the Supreme Universal Cosmic Consciousness, the Essence of all life and form, and the primordial vibration or "Word" the was in the beginning and is made flesh in all of us."

That description is compatible with religion and science, as my previous post about Einstein shows. You ought to read it.
.

What we are, in essence, is eternal. What "you" are at the highest level of your consciousness will still exist when your body passes away. Our consciousness and what we really are is not dependent upon his body, or this world. It will continue to exist. It is one with that which was, is, and always will be.

I appreciate your post Guy Dwyer. I too believe that religion has unfairly shifted the conversation away from and/or tainted any concept of "God". The concept of true nature, of an underlying (or overlying) force or intelligence or order or 'insert word here' that we are somehow infused with is something that the human race should aspire to commune with, to consider, and to further understand. Although likely full understanding is as far beyond us as full understanding of a human being is to an ant. Even still, thinking that its either religion or atheism is too close-minded. There is a third option.

I can't however whole-heartedly agree with this above statement though. To an extent, I can. But to the extent that once our ego and everything that makes up our brain's version of our personality and who we believe ourselves to be, once that separates from "the highest level of consciousness"... who's to say that 'we' will be after death, at least in any way that would qualify as ourselves living beyond our body. While I feel strongly in favor of the notion that something about our essence of life lives on or passes on to some other time and/or space or dimension, I cannot subscribe 100% to the notion that it will not, by nature of design, destroy the very part that distinguishes a human 'soul' from any other incarnation. Its just as possible that the process of death kills the person, taking only that which does not a person make.

What we are, in essence, is eternal. What "you" are at the highest level of your consciousness will still exist when your body passes away. Our consciousness and what we really are is not dependent upon his body, or this world. It will continue to exist. It is one with that which was, is, and always will be.

I appreciate your post Guy Dwyer. I too believe that religion has unfairly shifted the conversation away from and/or tainted any concept of "God". The concept of true nature, of an underlying (or overlying) force or intelligence or order or 'insert word here' that we are somehow infused with is something that the human race should aspire to commune with, to consider, and to further understand. Although likely full understanding is as far beyond us as full understanding of a human being is to an ant. Even still, thinking that its either religion or atheism is too close-minded. There is a third option.

I can't however whole-heartedly agree with this above statement though. To an extent, I can. But to the extent that once our ego and everything that makes up our brain's version of our personality and who we believe ourselves to be, once that separates from "the highest level of consciousness"... who's to say that 'we' will be after death, at least in any way that would qualify as ourselves living beyond our body. While I feel strongly in favor of the notion that something about our essence of life lives on or passes on to some other time and/or space or dimension, I cannot subscribe 100% to the notion that it will not, by nature of design, destroy the very part that distinguishes a human 'soul' from any other incarnation. Its just as possible that the process of death kills the person, taking only that which does not a person make.

.
SB,

Thanks for that thoughtful and kind comment.

I understand why you suggest that no one can say that we or our spirit or soul will exist after our body dies. However, there have been and still are many people who say what we really are is far more than this limited body, or this limited ego. Many of the religious texts in the world say that is the case, and growing testimony from people who have had "near death" or out-of-body experiences tells us that our consciousness is not dependent upon our mortal bodies.

Personally, I'm not really concerned with that subject or that issue. What really matters to me is the here and now, in this world. And this world is pretty screwed up, partly because of the "holy wars" and conflicts over the "will" and nature of God. That's why I thought this article was important, and why I pointed it out.

It's author, by the way, wrote of his profound spiritual experience, which included an out-of-body experience, in the bio that has been published by The All Faiths Initiative for Peace, Freedom and Justice. Just look for his story listed in the Site Map.
.

I think that God or Gods, or no God is a question with 5 billion answers. Like finger prints, no two entirely alike. It's a personal understanding, a personal belief (or no belief). That's what's great, it's a spectrum and you can select your color, or black, white, or clear. What I feel and/or believe can't be explained here. Nor should it be, in my view. I keep it a personal thing. I don't have any answers. I don't expect anyone to change their beliefs. I certainly don't recruit. I don't ever go to church. I pray often. I volunteer to help others as well. Too many who see themselves as religious are competing like it's a sporting event. Trying to win everyone to their type of beliefs. I keep it between me and he or she who hears my prayers. I've never met them so I don't know. In this male dominating world it's only natural to think God is male. I'd love it if God is a female with a very kind smile.

TJ Wrote: I think that God or Gods, or no God is a question with 5 billion answers. Like finger prints, no two entirely alike. It's a personal understanding, a personal belief (or no belief). That's what's great, it's a spectrum and you can select your color, or black, white, or clear.

Tony,

It may surprise you to know that the author of the article I cited also wrote a song called It Takes Two, and the first verse says:

"Once upon a time I really wanted to say,
Hey listen my friends, I have found the way.
But then I came to find out, ultimately;
Each and everyone of us, we all have our own key."

He wrote that in 1978, a year before he received a profound revelation and miraculous guidance regarding why he had been called back in 1971, when he was 30 years old. It took him many years of self-doubt and denial before he finally accepted his mission, but since 1991 he has been true to it. And he still sings that song and others, one of which states "To just one truth do many faiths plead. To just one way do many paths lead." -- a truth that is a big part of his message.

What we are, in essence, is eternal. What "you" are at the highest level of your consciousness will still exist when your body passes away. Our consciousness and what we really are is not dependent upon his body, or this world. It will continue to exist. It is one with that which was, is, and always will be.

I appreciate your post Guy Dwyer. I too believe that religion has unfairly shifted the conversation away from and/or tainted any concept of "God". The concept of true nature, of an underlying (or overlying) force or intelligence or order or 'insert word here' that we are somehow infused with is something that the human race should aspire to commune with, to consider, and to further understand. Although likely full understanding is as far beyond us as full understanding of a human being is to an ant. Even still, thinking that its either religion or atheism is too close-minded. There is a third option.

I can't however whole-heartedly agree with this above statement though. To an extent, I can. But to the extent that once our ego and everything that makes up our brain's version of our personality and who we believe ourselves to be, once that separates from "the highest level of consciousness"... who's to say that 'we' will be after death, at least in any way that would qualify as ourselves living beyond our body. While I feel strongly in favor of the notion that something about our essence of life lives on or passes on to some other time and/or space or dimension, I cannot subscribe 100% to the notion that it will not, by nature of design, destroy the very part that distinguishes a human 'soul' from any other incarnation. Its just as possible that the process of death kills the person, taking only that which does not a person make.

.
SB,

Thanks for that thoughtful and kind comment.

I understand why you suggest that no one can say that we or our spirit or soul will exist after our body dies. However, there have been and still are many people who say what we really are is far more than this limited body, or this limited ego. Many of the religious texts in the world say that is the case, and growing testimony from people who have had "near death" or out-of-body experiences tells us that our consciousness is not dependent upon our mortal bodies.

Personally, I'm not really concerned with that subject or that issue. What really matters to me is the here and now, in this world. And this world is pretty screwed up, partly because of the "holy wars" and conflicts over the "will" and nature of God. That's why I thought this article was important, and why I pointed it out.

It's author, by the way, wrote of his profound spiritual experience, which included an out-of-body experience, in the bio that has been published by The All Faiths Initiative for Peace, Freedom and Justice. Just look for his story listed in the Site Map.
.

Semantics are a tricky thing. :) I don't mean to suggest definitively that there is no soul or spirit or energy that presides eternal. Or that we are not individually somehow a part of this.. call it source material (for gross lack of a better term). I actually personally feel that both are accurate, just the wording is wrong, or incomplete, or something.. Again, it's tricky. I don't have the internal dictionary available to my conscious mind to whittle down the right words, let alone a string of them placed into a coherent (enough) sentence that I could possibly say justify as THE answer.

The semantics I was playing with in my previous post where what passes on. I have reason to believe (from personal experience) that something, somehow does/is presid(ing) eternal, I just don't know of how much of what we as humans identify as human soul makes it past the natural process of death. THAT to me is the big question. I feel that in some way, shape, form, void, manifestation, time, etc.. somehow a notion of God is a correct notion. I just wonder what part of us is that eternal nature.

Think of it this way: if our body and brain is like that of a TV (only more complicated, bio friendly and organic), the hardware of a television set is only as useful as the signal that the components convert and ultimately display on the screen. Comparing that simile to that of the human mind and body system, lets say that consciousness is that signal. We have the hardware to receive, digest and implement a whole host of electrical impulses, encode them through the impossibly complicated nuero-network of the brain, and experience these impulses through, at minimum, our 5 senses and their corresponding ways in which we experience life in this body of ours, while its still on and kicking. One could argue, if this were to be considered a viable metaphor for the human experience, that once the hardware malfunctions/shuts down/blows up/expires/dies, the signals slowly work through the last impulse arrangements and slowly but surely leave the hardware and go back into the "ether". Would that signal that the human monkey biologically was lucky enough to "tune" into be considered God? Or maybe God's energy? And an even better and more apt question, do we ultimately encode of any of "ourselves" onto that signal? If so, what, how much, and why? Can we do things to make our ratio of that signal more "us", like when people say "man, he really lived" or "he/she was really AWAKE/turned on/aware/got it".. Perhaps we can figure this out and contribute better; perhaps we can have more skin in the game. Less zombie surviving, more human living/being through ... appropriate and meaning-filled experience(s). Hmmmm... semantics again.

I also think that metaphor needs one more consideration.. smart tvs. Allow me to sort of explain. In the infancy of television, it was a one way street; hardware received signal, then components implemented, decoded and displayed that radio/digital signal onto the screen. That was the process. One way. Now we have TVs that are 'smart', meaning they have internet access, they can receive AND send information. If I were to get crazy with this metaphor (why not right?) let's say that first gen conscious entities (our first ancestors if you follow any evolutionary model) were old school TV sets. Only receivers. Today, or maybe at some point on the evolutionary timeline, we evolved components that allowed us to SEND as well as receive. A neuro-network; our brains are smart TVs talking to God. :) that could be one explanation of what "passes" on. Perhaps we are here as some sort of school of experiential manifestations. And, once we complete a task, that experience that is subconsciously downloaded onto our hardware is at some point uploaded to the "cloud" of ultimate experience. See where I'm going with this?

I don't know what to believe. Hell, I don't even like the word 'believe' because of the whole religious concept of 'blind faith'. It's tainted now to me. But I feel that through experience and watching the way that human innovation mimics that of the standards of operation that nature has been operating on since... forever.. its safe to assume that the height of our technological advancements should in some way be a reflection of a higher order. After all, that's all that technology is. Airplanes after birds, automobiles after horses (horsepower), boats after... fish. lol you get my point.

sbf,
Very good post. You made some very interesting points. I liked what you said. It was kinda cool how you found a new way of attempting to explain things. I liked it. Your post was better than most threads. I sure don't know what happens when our heart stops. Afterlife would be cool as a way to see people from our past who have passed on. But, nobody knows anything for sure. What's the saying ? Energy can't be stopped, it's only transferred...Maybe something like that.

"Throughout history people have been trying to describe God, but at best all they've been able to do is provide concepts of God, because God is, after all, eternal, infinite and omnipresent, and God is impossible to fathom or understand, let alone describe."

So of course humans don't know what God is.

That is why the articles continues with this:

"Perhaps the best we can do is say that God is the Great Spirit-Parent, the Divine Light-Energy-Sources of our existence, the Supreme Universal Cosmic Consciousness, the Essence of all life and form, and the primordial vibration or "Word" the was in the beginning and is made flesh in all of us."

That description is compatible with religion and science, as my previous post about Einstein shows. You ought to read it.

.

Guy; Einstein was a great thinker; however still did think like a "human"; sorry also he and neither you, do not have clue about the "why" and "how"
Do we as humans serve any purpose in the universe? Did Einstein figure that out? I guess not. So as long as humans think only and have no proof whatsoever, for what purpose the total universe was created and by what, or maybe for no purpose at all, that means our tiny brains regardless of our science can not comprehend such. A human always tries to compare itself with anything in the universe; the "whatever" up there likely does not think like a human or even like Einstein. "thinking" is only done by a "human brain" bound by earth, not neccesarely by something out there.

"Perhaps the best we can do is say that God is the Great Spirit-Parent, the Divine Light-Energy-Sources of our existence, the Supreme Universal Cosmic Consciousness, the Essence of all life and form, and the primordial vibration or "Word" the was in the beginning and is made flesh in all of us."

Again "humans" made this statement; first of all it says "god" then "great spirit parent" then "Divine-light-energy-sources" etc etc. which are solely "human" created terms/words. The whatever, if there is a "whatever" likely will have no idea of "human" words or "thinking" or human "fantasy's"
Also who says that it is a "something" at all ; may be our universe is a "molecule" as part of something even bigger; compare it to a "cell" in your leg; it is still a tiny living thing, but does not know who or what you are, but still knows what its function is in your body.

"Perhaps the best we can do is say that God is the Great Spirit-Parent, the Divine Light-Energy-Sources of our existence, the Supreme Universal Cosmic Consciousness, the Essence of all life and form, and the primordial vibration or "Word" the was in the beginning and is made flesh in all of us."

Again "humans" made this statement; first of all it says "god" then "great spirit parent" then "Divine-light-energy-sources" etc etc. which are solely "human" created terms/words. The whatever, if there is a "whatever" likely will have no idea of "human" words or "thinking" or human "fantasy's"
Also who says that it is a "something" at all ; may be our universe is a "molecule" as part of something even bigger; compare it to a "cell" in your leg; it is still a tiny living thing, but does not know who or what you are, but still knows what its function is in your body.

.
Dutch,

What we have is a lot of testimony from witnesses – witnesses who have seen or perceived something or some phenomena that most other people have not witnessed or perceived. And we also have a lot of testimony from those who have received divine revelations regarding the divine reality, or some aspect of the divine reality.

Other people can either find such testimony credible or not, and people can believe there is a divine reality or not.

I find the testimony of the author of the articles I cite credible, and I especially consider his testimony about witnessing God credible, because I had a similar experience.

In his autobiography, some of which was preserved, edited and re-published by the All Faiths Initiative for Peace, Freedom and Justice, he explained what happened during that experience.

He first told what led up to it, how he fortuitously discovered the difference between romantic love and universal love, and that experience is reported in The Story of the Modern Son of Man.

If you read his story you will find that such an experience first left him in a total state of love, and he simply enjoyed himself. But after a few years he began to develop a messianic complex. Then after a bit of effort to do what he though he should do, he became a wandering ascetic. Then in 1977 he was severely stricken, afflicted and disabled. In 1979 through a miraculous event and spiritual guidance he discovered why he had been called, and after about ten years of self-doubt and denial, he finally learned why he had been afflicted, and why it was according to the prophecies of Isaiah and Jesus, and he accepted his mission. He's been working ever since.

"Listen to me, all peoples, from far: the Lord has called me, and from the womb of my mother has God made mention of my name. And the Lord God has made my mouth and pen like a sharp sword. In the shadow of God’s hand have I been hidden; and the Lord has made me as a polished arrow concealed in God’s quiver. And God said to me: 'You are My servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.' But I said: 'I have labored in vain, I have spent my strength for naught and vanity. Yet surely my righteousness is with the Lord, and my satisfaction with my God.' And my God that formed me from the womb to be a loyal servant, to bring Jacob back to God, and that Israel be gathered unto God — for I am honorable in the sight of the Lord, and my God is become my strength. Indeed, God said: 'It is not enough that you should be My servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the offspring of Israel. I will also give you for a light of all the nations, that My salvation may be unto the ends of the earth.' Thus said the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One, to him who is despised of men, to him who is abhorred of nations, to a servant of rulers: 'They shall see, and they shall lower themselves and acknowledge God; because of the Lord that is faithful, even the Holy One of Israel, who has chosen you.'" –– Isaiah 49:1-7
.
As it says in the Introduction to his message, that speaks of the modern Messiah, whose work will set things straight in the world. And Jesus of Nazareth understood the prophecies about him, especially those in the book of Isaiah. That is why Jesus said he had to “go away and be seen no more” but spoke about what would happen now at the end of the age, with the coming of the modern "son of man" who now bears the testimony of Jesus, preceding prophets, and other enlightened ones.

"The days will come when people will want to see one of the days of the son of man, and they shall not see it. So they will look here and there, but do not follow them. For as the lightning lightens all parts under heaven, so shall also the [work of the] son of man be in his day. But first he must suffer many things, and be rejected by his generation." -- Jesus, according to Luke 17:20-25

The trouble is, because of the erroneous presumptions and doctrines of men, Christians have not understood Jesus. For whereas Jesus was accepted by multitudes in his generation but was killed young, the modern son of man is old and has been rejected by his generation and been stricken, afflicted, despised and abhorred, and thus fulfills actual Judeo-Christian prophecies. He has delivered his work before him as he remains hidden, just as was prophesied by Isaiah and Jesus. And the message is like "a light for all the nations," because it is delivered electronically "like lightning" to you, and it is sharp as an arrow.